G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Is very different than “had to die”.
- Status
P
prodromos
Guest
Do you understand that the word “cemetery” is from the Greek word “κοιμητήριο” which has as its root “κοιμάμαι”, the word for “sleep”? This is the same word at the root of “Η Κοίμηση της Θεοτόκου” (The Dormition of the Theotokos). Do you honestly believe that all the people buried in the cemetery are merely sleeping?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Probably a good deal of lack of continuity comes from Dogma vs Tradition. This isn’t a issue by large in the East as they learn Tradition first. In the West they are to some extent learning Dogma first I suspect. Truth is the further learning is self motivated either way.
J
josie_L
Guest
Gary, you may believe that if you wish but the CC has never confirmed that, which is the whole point of this thread.Is very different than “had to die”.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Your losing me?
J
josie_L
Guest
Maybe I misread you, but are you stating that Mary did die?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
No biggie, this is what I’m saying.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=823278&highlight=Did+Mary+die
W
wynd
Guest
How far does the RCC have to go to “confirm” something? In my mind, the fact that the document Munificentissimus Deus mentions Mary’s death several times (even though it’s not included in the sentence which is always quoted as being infallible) is “confirmation.” If this isn’t enough why bother having Tradition at all?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
Okay!
**Note the Pius XII only declared that Mary had completed her earthly life. There is no mention as to if this meant death (as we know it) or if Mary was assumed while still alive. Catholics are thus free to hold either opinion. **
If we are free to hold either opinion, than we shouldn’t have to argue about one side or the other, because neither position has been dogmatized, which is what I was trying to get at.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Right, which is what I was saying and my continued point here.
Further as I mentioned and is mentioned above in apologetic’s. I have no idea what is meant by death. That’s why I added a thread earlier to emphasis the point of the mystery of death in relation. And thats with Tradition.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
From a liturgical standpoint, it is nonsensical to argue that Mary did not die a physical death. It’s been a part of the liturgy for centuries.
St. John Paul II addressed the notion that she did not die here. Some of his key points are that it was never even imagined that she did not die until the 17th century. Additionally, St John Paul noted that it was never his predecessor’s intent " to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers." (He is speaking of Pius XII who wrote Munificentissimus Deus) IF you actually read Munificentissimus Deus, which few people seem to do, you will see that Pope Pius XII makes several references to her bodily death when he quotes saints or predecessors:
Also, St. John Paul II further argues "It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation. "
St. John Paul II addressed the notion that she did not die here. Some of his key points are that it was never even imagined that she did not die until the 17th century. Additionally, St John Paul noted that it was never his predecessor’s intent " to deny the fact of her death, but merely did not judge it opportune to affirm solemnly the death of the Mother of God as a truth to be accepted by all believers." (He is speaking of Pius XII who wrote Munificentissimus Deus) IF you actually read Munificentissimus Deus, which few people seem to do, you will see that Pope Pius XII makes several references to her bodily death when he quotes saints or predecessors:
In short, the only place that Pope Pius XII left out that the Blessed Mother died a physical death was in the final proclamation at the end of the declaration. However, since he included so many references to her death in the body of the document, I concur with St. John Paul II that it was not his predecessors intent to deny that she died.
Also, St. John Paul II further argues "It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation. "
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Your repeating an addressed point already. And as I stated already, marginalizing others belief for an opinion, yours, being nonsensical. Whats nonsensical is to ignore every single apologists thread on this forum.
J
josie_L
Guest
That is my position as well, I just thought you were advocating something else. Thanks for the clarification.Right, which is what I was saying and my continued point here.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The understanding of death here is difficult to quantify when we are talking body and soul assumed. Saint John Paul II used the phrase “most fitting” similar to the IC, pretty much what Michelle Arnold had said along with others. But he doesn’t define Marys death. The point death is mentioned in the encyclical really becomes non sequitur. Christ chose to die, and Mary it is assumed would indeed have done the same. A point no-on disagrees with. As to what die means in either case pretty much remains a mystery.That is my position as well, I just thought you were advocating something else. Thanks for the clarification.
I think Mary fell asleep and passed from mortality to immortality.
W
wynd
Guest
The answer doesn’t really address my question, it just adds more confusion. Anything that’s not infallibly declared is just “commentary,” really?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I don’t see where there is a question, but one that is contingent on Dogma which is addressed. Its what we have been discussing and right above.
“How far does the RCC have to go to “confirm” something? In my mind, the fact that the document Munificentissimus Deus mentions Mary’s death several times (even though it’s not included in the sentence which is always quoted as being infallible) is “confirmation.” If this isn’t enough why bother having Tradition at all?”
Follow?
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
It was not my intention to marginalize anyone. However, I was stating the opinion of the Church as demonstrated through her liturgy as well as the opinion expressed throughout the Munificentissimus Deus (as well as the opinion of St. John Paul II, which was expressly given to clarify his predecessors opinion). Insisting that the Blessed Virgin did not die is contradictory to the opinion given by the Church in hundreds of years of liturgy and in papal documents. That does not make sense to me (that part is my opinion).
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The opinion of the Church is the Dogma. Which as stated, and now several times, Catholics may indeed believe she died or did not die. You agree here right?
And since I am positive you will not be defining death in relation to Mary today, then the point stands.
P
Prayer_Warrior
Guest
Respectfully, I feel that the Church’s opinion (teaching) goes beyond dogma.
CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when,** without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,**” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
We are not bound to adhere to mere theological opinions expressed by the Pope or bishops (like opinions that Pope Emeritus Benedict put forth in “Jesus of Nazareth”). However, according to the above statement, we are bound to believe what has been authoritatively taught by the Church-- even if it is not presented infallibly. Here is more information on de fide, veritates catholic, and the various theological opinions of the Church. It happens to mention the probable death of the Blessed Virgin Mary (SENTENTIA PROBABILIS) .
Personally, I believe the entire body of Munificentissimus Deus constitutes “authoritative teaching” that we are to adhere to with religious assent.
- Status